GOKUL CHANDRA DAS Vs. CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioner-Gokul Ch.Das, prays to quash Annexure-1, which is the settlement arrived at between the Management and the petitioner, wherein he has allegedly given up his right to claim the gratuity.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk at Talcher Colliery and successfully discharged his duties. He was promoted to the post of Senior Cashier w.e.f. 18.3.1971. Basing on the F.I.R. lodged by the Colliery Manager on 23.2.1979 a criminal case, vide G.R. Case No.66 of1979, was initiated against the petitioner for misappropriation of coal royalty amounting to Rs.64,737/- and the said case was tried by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Talacher. The petitioner has been acquitted in the said case. It is alleged by the petitioner that during pendency of the said case, opposite party no.3 has taken statement forcibly at midnight on 23.2.1979 that he has misappropriated coal royalty amounting to Rs.64,737/- which he has received by way of cheque and encashed the same on 29.1.1979 and, accordingly, the case was tried under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. Immediately thereafter a Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and on the next day i.e. on 24.2.1979 he had suspended from his service. After suspension the petitioner has received subsistence allowance till 14.12.1979 pending Disciplinary Proceeding initiated against him by opposite party no.3. Opposite party no.3 has framed charges on 21.3.1979 and directed the petitioner to submit explanation within seven days and the petitioner has received the said notice after 21.3.1979. Thereafter the Departmental Proceeding proceeded and it is alleged by the petitioner that in gross violation of principles of natural justice he was found guilty, but he was acquitted by the criminal court.

(3.) It transpires from the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties that on 8.8.1996 there was a settlement between the parties in terms of Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957(in short "Rules, 1957") in Form H, as appended to the schedule, wherein the petitioner had agreed that he will not be entitled to nor he will claim gratuity for his past service till re-instatement. He will also not be entitled to gratuity from the date of his joining duties till 3.11.1998, i.e. the date of superannuation. On the basis of this statement, it is contended by the opposite parties that the petitioner is not entitled to gratuity as claimed. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the reported case of Cooperative Store Ltd. And Ved Prakash Bhambri; 1 L.L.J 1990, page-119, wherein the Delhi High Court has held that Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and Form H are statutory provisions which have to be given full effect before the settlement could be considered valid. Even though the settlement has not been arrived at during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, yet the settlement has to be in accordance with the statutory provisions before it can be held to be valid. Settlement between the individual workman and the management must be strictly in compliance with the rules. 'Settlement' has been clearly defined under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the same has to be in accordance with the statutory provisions. If there is no settlement as contemplated in the statute and the rules made there under, the same will not be binding on the parties under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.